Evolution of Authenticity: Investigating the (De)Restoration of Ancient Sculpture (De)Restorations in the 1970s

Lindenwood University Lindenwood University

Digital Commons@Lindenwood University Digital Commons@Lindenwood University

Theses Theses & Dissertations

12-2022

Evolution of Authenticity: Investigating the (De)Restoration of Evolution of Authenticity: Investigating the (De)Restoration of

Ancient Sculpture (De)Restorations in the 1970s Ancient Sculpture (De)Restorations in the 1970s

Amelia Griese

Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.lindenwood.edu/theses

Part of the Arts and Humanities Commons

EVOLUTION OF AUTHENTICITY: INVESTIGATING THE (DE)RESTORATION OF

ANCIENT SCULPTURE (DE)RESTORATIONS IN THE 1970s

Amelia Griese

Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements

for the Degree of Master Art in Art History and Visual Cultures

Lindenwood University

The author hereby grants Lindenwood University permission to reproduce and to distribute

publicly paper and electronic thesis copies of document in whole or in part in any medium now

known or hereafter created.

Amelia Griese 12/8/2022

Author's Name

Author's Signature

Date

Amelia Griese

2022.12.08 17:07:37 -05'00

Committee Chair Signature Date

Esperanca Camara 2022-12-09

Committee Member Signature

Date

12/10/2022

Alexis Culotta

12.11.2022

EVOLUTION OF AUTHENTICITY: INVESTIGATING THE (DE)RESTORATION OF

ANCIENT SCULPTURE (DE)RESTORATIONS IN THE 1970s

A Thesis Submitted to the Faculty of the School of Arts, Media, and Communications

in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the

Degree of Master in Fine Arts

Lindenwood University

Amelia Griese

Saint Charles, Missouri

December 2022

ABSTRACT

Title of Thesis: Evolution of Authenticity: Investigating the (De)Restoration of Ancient

Sculpture (De)Restorations in the 1970s

Amelia Griese, Master of Fine Art, 2022

Thesis Directed by: Dr. Alexis Culotta

This thesis focuses on the period of de-restoration of ancient Greek and Roman sculptures in the

1970s. While three distinct periods of restoration history have been well-defined by scholars (17

to 19

century, the 1970s, and modern-day), the discussion of the motivations behind the focus on

purism that led to de-restoration in the 1970s are lacking in the literature. The Lansdowne Herakles

and the Aegina Marbles will be used in this analysis because of their illustration of the different

periods of restoration history. While both the Lansdowne Herakles and the Aegina Marbles were

de-restored in the 1970s, their fate in modern time diverges. The Lansdowne Herakles was once

again restored in 1996, while the Aegina Marbles remain in their de-restored state. The different

periods of restoration will be further explained using dominant authenticities: aesthetic,

conceptual, material and historical. The addition of historical authenticity to discussions in

previous literature is a critical part of understanding the modern take on restoration history. Using

the legacies of the Lansdowne Herakles and the recovered pediment figures from Aegina, this

study will use parallels to English historiography to explain the focus on hard facts and strict

timelines of visual history that led to the de-restoration of many ancient sculptures in the 1970s.

Table of Contents

List of Figures ....................................................................................................................... 5

Introduction ............................................................................................................................ 6

Context/Literature Review ................................................................................................... 16

Methodology ........................................................................................................................... 29

Production and Analysis ......................................................................................................... 31

Conclusions ............................................................................................................................. 37

List of Illustrations ................................................................................................................. 40

Bibliography ........................................................................................................................... 48

List of Figures

Figure 1. Lansdowne Herakles, 125 CE, marble, Los Angeles, J. Paul Getty Museum…..….…40

Figure 2. Lansdowne Herakles after removal of 18th-century restorations by Getty

Museum.........................................................................................................................................41

Figure 3. Pedimental Sculpture from Temple of Aphaia on Aegina, Munich, Glyptothek……..42

Figure 4. Warrior O II shown before and after de-restoration of the work done by

Thorvaldsen……………………………………………………………………………………...43

Figure 5. Temple of Aphaia East Pediment Proposals…………………………………………..44

Figure 6. Ludovisi Ares, 4

century BCE, marble, Rome, National Museum Terme, restored by

Bernini…………………………………………………………………………………………...45

Figure 7. Torchbearer, Alessandro Algardi, 1626, marble, Rome, National Museum of Ancient

Art………………………………………………………………………………………………..46

Figure 8. Dominant Authenticities over Time, shows the relative importance of each authenticity

to restorations in the Golden Age, the 1970s, and today……………………………………..…47

Introduction

Visitors walk into the Temple of Hercules at the J. Paul Getty Museum in Los Angeles,

California and they are met with the imposing figure of the Lansdowne Herakles, standing proudly

in a relaxed contrapposto at the center of the room (Figure 1). He has his club over one shoulder

and his lion skin cloak at his side. When they gaze at this statue, they see a classic example of

Greek sculpture, but they see nothing of its long and complicated history. If they read the placard,

they learn that the sculpture is in fact a Roman copy of a Greek original, likely commissioned by

the Roman emperor Hadrian. They would then see at the end of the description, almost as an

afterthought, “[a]reas of restoration include the statue’s lower left leg and parts of both arms.”

This making whole of the sculpture via restoration recalls a complicated legacy that dates back to

debates spurred in the Renaissance when strong aversions to fragmentary sculpture resulted in the

development of an entire industry for restoring statues. Leonard Barkan, in his book Unearthing

the Past: Archaeology and Aesthetics in the Making of Renaissance Culture, calls the period from

“Statue of Hercules (Lansdowne Herakles) (Getty Museum),” The J. Paul Getty in Los

Angeles, accessed December 5, 2021,

https://www.getty.edu/art/collection/objects/6549/unknown-maker-statue-of-hercules-

lansdowne-herakles-roman-about-ad-125/.

the 17

century to the early 19

century the “golden age of restoring antiquities.”

This trend

waned during the late 19

century when there was an abrupt change of practice in the 20

century.

By the 1970s, there was a push across many museums and conservation departments to remove

the prior restorations and display only the original antiquity with no additions, however this only

lasted a few decades.

In the 21

century many institutions decided to re-restore these ancient

sculptures and put the golden age restorations back in place since they are a part of the piece’s

history. Such is the case for the Lansdowne Herakles as seen today.

While these three periods of restoration are well defined in the literature there is little

information about why there was such an abrupt change to de-restoration in the 1970s. This study

will fill the gap in the research using new historicism to analyze the written material from the

1970s and explain the change in policy to de-restoration using patterns in dominant authenticities:

aesthetic, conceptual, material, and historical. While aesthetic, conceptual and material

authenticity have been used in prior research by David Scott, historical authenticity has been added

to this analysis to further contextualize the current era’s understanding of restoration theory.

Historical authenticity is comprised of an understanding that the object has passed through time

which has molded and changed it from what the original artist first produced. These additions are

now viewed as something that adds to, rather than diminishes the object. Building on the

foundations of reception theory, this thesis will assess the influence of these authenticities and how

Leonard Barkan, Unearthing the Past: Archaeology and the Aesthetics in the Making of

Renaissance Culture (New Haven and London: Yale University Press, 1999), 187.

Seymour Howard, The Lansdowne Herakles (Malibu, Calif.: J. Paul Getty Museum,

1978), 3.

their shifting weight resulted in changing outlooks as to the merits of or detriments to the

restoration of antique sculptures. At the center of this analysis will be the Lansdowne Herakles

and Aegina Marbles, selected because they reflect divergent narratives of restoration. While both

the Lansdowne Herakles and the Aegina Marbles were de-restored in the 1970s, the Lansdowne

Herakles was once again restored in 1996 whilst the Aegina Marbles remain in their de-restored

state. These divergent outcomes, perhaps influenced by transitions from private collections to

public museum spaces, reveal the different attitudes on restoration and thus serve as an ideal

springboard for this thesis’ claims.

Case Studies

Lansdowne Herakles

The Lansdowne Herakles is currently a part of the J. Paul Getty Museum’s permanent

collection and got its name from its previous owner Lord Lansdowne. The statue is believed to be

a Roman copy (125 CE) of a Greek original sculpture by Skopas, who worked during the 4

century BCE.

As with many antiquities, the sculpture was lost and then rediscovered in the early

1790s at Emperor Hadrian’s villa near Tivoli.

The Lansdowne Herakles has a rich restoration

history and was first restored when it was added to Lord Lansdowne’s collection. Later in the

1970s when it became a part of the Getty’s Roman art collection, the decision was made to de-

Jerry Podany, “Restoring What Wasn’t There: Reconsideration of the Eighteenth-

Century Restorations to the Lansdowne Herakles in the Collection of the J Paul Getty Museum,”

in Restoration - Is It Acceptable?, ed. William A. Oddy (London: British Museum Press, 1994),

11.

Howard, The Lansdowne Herakles, 8.

restore the piece and remove these earlier restorations. In the late 1990s, this decision was reversed

again and the sculpture was put back on display at the Getty with the 18

century restorations

intact. This history fits well with the established periods of sculptural restoration practices and

highlights not only the motivations during the 1970s to de-restore, but also shows one of the ways

current museum officials are handling the complicated history of these ancient sculptures.

The Lansdowne Herakles was purchased by Lord Lansdowne with the help of Thomas

Jenkins and Charles Townley. Thomas Jenkins was a well-known English art dealer in Rome who

purchased the sculpture after its discovery. Charles Townley was another English collector whose

collection ultimately became the foundation for the British Museum in 1792.

Townley wrote to

Lansdowne about two sculptures. One sculpture was the Lansdowne Herakles and the other was a

statue holding a discus. Townley asked to keep the sculpture with a discus for himself. In a letter

dated April 3, 1792, Townley notes that the Lansdowne Herakles “has its own head never broke

from the body, both its hands and feet and wants nothing of consequence but the middle part of

one of the legs.”

The condition detailed by Townley is rather remarkable for antiquities discovered

during this period, as they were usually fragmentary and had unidentifiable iconography. Despite

the relatively good condition of the sculpture, in the next letter to Lord Lansdowne from Jenkins

on April 30, 1792, he notes with little fanfare that the sculpture has been sent out for restoration

prior to being shipped back to England.

Lord Lansdowne paid £500 for the Lansdowne Herakles

Howard, 11.

Howard, 13.

Howard, 14.

and upon its arrival, it was immediately recognized as an excellent sculpture. Richard Knight, who

studied early English antiquarianism, wrote in 1809 that it was “incomparably the finest male

figure that has ever come into this country and one of the finest that has hitherto been discovered.”

In Seymour Howard’s book on the Lansdowne Herakles, he concedes that the restoration

and repairs to the Lansdowne Herakles were relatively modest compared to others being performed

at that time. They were, however, not as insignificant as Jenkins and Townley made them out to

be in their letters to Lord Lansdowne.

Figure 2 shows the condition of the sculpture after all of

the 18

century restorations were removed. The restorer who performed the 18

century

restorations is unknown, but most scholars have ruled out Bartolomeo Cavaceppi. Cavaceppi was

a master restorer during the 18

century who frequently worked with Jenkins. Due to the poor

quality of the restoration, it is believed that the work may have been done by one of his students.

After Lord Lansdowne’s death in 1805, the sculpture passed through a few collections in

England before being put up for auction at Christie's in March of 1930. It was eventually acquired

by J. Paul Getty in 1951.

In 1976, the conservation team at the Getty noticed the iron support

rods internally housed in the Lansdowne Herakles were starting to rust and there was a fear that

the marble would begin to split.

A major conservation effort was undertaken to repair the

Howard, 17.

Howard, 18.

Podany, “Restoring What Wasn’t There,” 11.

Podany, 11.

Howard, The Lansdowne Herakles, 3.

Lansdowne Herakles. It was during this conservation effort that the 18

century restorations were

removed and not reassembled.

Antiquities conservator Zdravko Barov published a conservation

report on the Lansdowne Herakles that “determined that only restorations necessary for support

and aesthetic considerations would be made, while all other additions would be left off.”

Jerry

Podany, another conservator at the Getty detailed the de-restoration as follows:

The major marble restoration segments which were set aside and not replaced

include:

- a large back part of the lion skin;

- tip of the nose;

- both extremities of the club;

- the right thumb;

- most of the little finger;

- the second joint of the left index finger.

The marble restorations which were set aside but replaced by modern

segments were:

- the right forearm and wrist;

- a large chip from the right thigh;

- the whole left calf;

- small chips in the left wrist;

- the area above the right, rear elbow;

- the area behind the right knee;

- the center of the left arm including the elbow.

The second set of additions noted by Podany were replaced with cast shells made of fiberglass and

epoxy that were recessed below the original marble surface.

These additions were considered

Howard, 3.

Podany, “Restoring What Wasn’t There,” 12.

Howard, The Lansdowne Herakles, 3.

necessary to preserve the aesthetic wholeness of the sculpture, but the recession was intended to

allow viewers to identify the non-antique aspects.

Barov concluded the conservation report by

stating “the new restoration of the statue was made not only for technical reasons but also to show

the original as much as possible free of alien additions. The emphasis is now on what is left of the

original, with additions limited to those necessary to cover the technical joins.”

Although all

previous restorations were removed, consideration for the comprehensibility of the sculpture

remained, as long as the additions clearly appeared non-ancient.

In 1996, the Lansdowne Herakles was once again placed under conservation treatment.

The epoxy casts that had been added in the place of the 18

century restorations were becoming

unstable and needed to be addressed.

A decision was made by Marion True, the former Curator

of Antiquities at the Getty, and Jerry Podany, a conservator at the Getty, to reattach the 18

century

restorations that had previously been removed during the 1970s de-restoration.

The sculpture

currently stands with these restorations in place. Podany concluded in an article on the de-

restoration and re-restoration of the Lansdowne Herakles that “most actions by earlier restorers

are, to all intents and purposes, permanent and irreversible. What is retrievable by de-restoration

Howard, 3.

Howard, 4.

Marion True, “Changing Approaches to Conservation,” in History of Restoration of

Ancient Stone Sculptures: Papers Delivered at a Symposium Organized by the Department of

Antiquities and Antiquities Conservation of the J. Paul Getty Museum and Held at the Museum

25-27 October 2001 (Los Angeles: J Paul Getty Museum, 2003), 7–8.

may be less valuable to the study of antiquity than the earlier restoration was to the study of a more

recent century.”

Here, Podany sheds light on the decision to reattach the 18

century restorations;

in the modern era with the rise of historical authenticity, there is an understanding that changes

made throughout history are a part of the sculpture and can no longer be undone without leaving

more of an impact.

Aegina Marbles

The Aegina Marbles are sixteen statues that make up the pediments of the ancient Greek

Temple of Aphaia on Aegina, which was built in 490-480 BCE (Figure 3).

The two pediments

depict battles with soldiers in various positions of fighting and dying and Athena overseeing at the

apex of both pediments. There is debate among scholars on what battles are depicted, but most

likely they are scenes from the Trojan War.

Like the Lansdowne Herakles, these sculptures were

extensively restored when they were added to a private collection. Later when the collection

transitioned to a museum setting they were de-restored. Unlike the Lansdowne Herakles, the

Aegina Marbles have not been re-restored and remain in the de-restored state from the 1970s. The

Aegina Marbles case study once again highlights the motivations of the 1970s de-restoration but

shows a different approach to how these sculptures were handled in the 21

century.

Podany, “Restoring What Wasn’t There,” 15.

Louis A. Ruprecht, “Romantic Receptions or The Aeginetan Sculptures Long March to

Munich,” in Religious Convergence in the Ancient Mediterranean (Atlanta: Lockwood Press,

2019), 364.

Judith M. Barringer, The Art and Archaeology of Ancient Greece (Cambridge:

Cambridge University Press, 2014), 199.

The sculptures were rediscovered in 1811 by four young artists who had sailed to the island

of Aegina to sketch the ruins, while on their Grand Tour of Europe.

Once they discovered the

fragmentary pediments, they took the pieces back to Athens where they attempted to put them

back together. Since the group of young artists was split between British and Bavarian nationals,

they could not decide where the sculptures should eventually end up so they decided to have a

public auction in November of 1812.

Similar to the Elgin Marbles that had recently been acquired

by the British Museum, it was a foregone conclusion that these treasures would not stay in Greece.

There were several complications with the auction and moving the sculptures out of Greece, but

in the end, a representative for the Crown Prince Ludwig of Bavaria succeeded in securing the

pediment sculptures.

It was not until 1815 that the sculptures were collected by Johann Martin

Wagner who was Ludwig’s representative and a neoclassical painter. While Wagner had the

sculptures in Rome, he arranged for them to be restored by a Danish sculptor, Bertel Thorvaldsen.

As part of his restorations, and in keeping with the practices of the time, Thorvaldsen extensively

completed the sculptures from 1816 to 1818, leaving no delineation between what was original

and reconstructed.

He also added metal weapons and other decorative elements to complete the

Ruprecht, “Romantic Receptions,” 368–69.

Ruprecht, 370.

Ruprecht, 371.

William J. Diebold, “The Politics of Derestoration: The Aegina Pediments and the

German Confrontation with the Past,” Art Journal 54, no. 2 (1995): 60,

https://doi.org/10.2307/777463.

statues (see Figure 4).

It is interesting to note that since these sculptures had been largely

underground until their rediscovery, some of their original colors and paints were preserved. Very

little is said about how Thorvaldsen handled these aspects, but modern science has used UV

technology to map out the patterns originally on the sculptures.

Ludwig was thrilled to have the sculptures since it fed his need to have an antiquity

collection to rival all others, including those held by Napoleon’s collection and the British

Museum.

He was so enamored with the sculptures and the start of his new collection that he

sponsored a design competition for a new neoclassical museum to house these works.

This

became the Glyptothek Museum when it was completed in 1830.

The site became part of Hitler’s

building project in Munich, during World War II. As a result, the museum suffered severe damage

from Allied bombing. In light of the damage to the museum, director Dieter Ohly of the Glyptothek

decided to de-restore the Aegina Marbles between 1962 and 1966. He argued that the museum had

a “desire to elide temporal differences, enacting an artful but ultimately misleading blending of the

past and the present in a weirdly hybrid, continuous whole.”

Questions about the Thorvaldsen

restorations began to surface as early as 1901 when Adolf Furtwangler, the director of the

Ruprecht, “Romantic Receptions,” 377.

Ruprecht, 377–78.

Ruprecht, 369.

Ruprecht, 372.

Diebold, “The Politics of Derestoration,” 60.

Ruprecht, “Romantic Receptions,” 381.

Glyptothek at the time, excavated the original pediment bases.

One of the most notable errors

this brought to light in the Thorvaldsen restoration was that Warrior O III was restored lying down,

but the pediment bases that were recovered indicated he would have been standing.

The

sculptures were put back on display in 1972 minus Thorvaldsen’s restorations. Art Historian

William Diebold commented that what was left on display “is a curious hybrid, brought about by

a desire to display fragmentary originals in a pure but comprehensible way.”

The very

fragmentary sculpture is supported by metal rods and contains several marble casts of fragments

that have since been excavated. The newly excavated fragments remain in Greece and the marble

casts are displayed in their place at the Glyptothek, in an attempt to display only the originals while

still giving the viewer an idea of what the whole pediment would have looked like.

In agreement

with the belief in historical authenticity the statues remain in this de-restored state today. The

decision to de-restore has been received with mixed reviews from the scholarly community. On

one hand, scholars argue that the de-restoration helped to improve accuracy. The opposing side

argues that this condition is no truer than before because the 19

century restorations and their

removal have left irreparable changes to the sculptures. Unfortunately, we have now lost the 19

century restoration history as well.

Literature Review

Diebold, “The Politics of Derestoration,” 60.

Diebold, 60.

Diebold, 61.

When discussing the history of visual art, more often than not, the first analysis of the work

is through the lens of formalism. Formalism is a critical theory that assesses the work solely based

on its formal elements and considers the work in a vacuum. In “The Intentional Fallacy,” Wimsatt

and Beardsley argue that the artist’s intention is not accessible or relevant when critically analyzing

a work of literature or in this case sculpture.

In alignment with formalism, they propose that the

artist’s intention is not important, because the artist either succeeded with his intention or did not,

therefore ultimately the judgment must be made on the work that was created alone.

While this

critical theory does allow the work to stand on its own, it knowingly ignores the historical context

which is critical to the understanding of these ancient works especially in the present day with the

focus on historical authenticity. Historical authenticity relies on the understanding that an object

has passed through time which has molded and changed it but that this only adds to the object, not

diminishes it.

There is significant formal analysis of the Aegina Marbles since they depict such a rapid

evolution in the styles of Greek art, however, there is very little research on the restoration history.

The West pediment that was completed in ca. 490 BCE shows rigid Archaic figures that are in

frontal or profile views with no dynamic movement. The East pediment was completed around

480 BCE and it had transitioned into an Early Classical artistic style with twisting warriors who

W. K. Wimsatt and M. C. Beardsley, “The Intentional Fallacy,” The Sewanee Review

54, no. 3 (1946): 3.

Wimsatt and Beardsley, 4.

show emotion rather than the fake smile often seen in sculptures from the Archaic period.

Since

the Aegina Marbles are a pedimental sculptural group, there are also discussions on the

arrangement of some of the sculptures and how they should be reconstructed to fit within the

triangular pediment.

The most significant point of contention in the placement of the figures

within the central section of the East pediment. On either side of Athena there are a grouping of

warriors whose positioning has been debated with several different propositions. Some scholars

have suggested these warriors should include a prone dying warrior and then two upright warriors

engaged in contest.

While other historians including Furtwangler proposed that there should only

be two warriors on either side of Athena engaged with each other, one standing upright striking a

blow at the other as he dynamically falls back (Figure 5). This proposal while mimicking

positioning seen on Greek vases gives an off balanced feel to the composition.

These small

changes make the difference in a more dynamic scene unfolding in real time on the pediment

versus a battle that has reached its conclusion.

Turning to the Lansdowne Herakles and the relevant formal analysis, when first describing

the statue of Herakles Howard describes him as such:

He stands easy and self-confident; his finely tuned body and mind are at the peak

of their abilities, mature yet youthful. He combines grace and beauty with easy

Barringer, The Art and Archaeology of Ancient Greece, 198–201.

Duncan Mackenzie, “The East Pediment Sculptures of the Temple of Aphaia at

Aegina,” The Annual of the British School at Athens 15 (1908): 274–75.

Mackenzie, “The East Pediment Sculptures of the Temple of Aphaia at Aegina.”

Mackenzie, 274.

attention and readiness. Here is truly the epitome of his ancient conception: the

hero's hero, made during an age that deified heroes.

In this description Howard is using formal analysis to describe the impression the sculpture

delivers based solely on the work itself. Unlike the Aegina Marbles, there is not a focus on the

formal analysis of the Lansdowne Herakles. The attention is on iconography and the significant

restoration history.

Outside of the two case studies discussed here, formalist theory has often been used in the

study of Renaissance restorations to identify which aspects of the restorations fall outside of the

original style of art. This would be where classical art was restored using contemporary elements

within the Renaissance or Baroque periods.

Using this theory scholars have critiqued the work

done by famous restorers and noted the faithfulness to the original work. Jennifer Montagu in her

comprehensive book on Roman Baroque sculpture remarked on famous sculptor and restorer Gian

Lorenzo Bernini’s restoration of the Ludovisi Ares (Figure 6), “there is not the slightest pretense

that this impish son of the baroque could be an original antique.”

The Ludovisi Ares was part of

the prominent Ludovisi collection curated by Cardinal Ludovico Ludovisi, nephew to Pope

Gregory XV.

The statue depicts a relaxed seated Ares with a sword resting in his left hand and

Howard, The Lansdowne Herakles, 7.

Jennifer Montagu, Roman Baroque Sculpture: The Industry of Art (New Haven, N.Y.:

Yale University Press, 1993).

Montagu, 159.

Miranda Marvin, “Possessions of the Princes: The Ludovisi Collection,” in History of

Restoration of Ancient Stone Sculptures: Papers Delivered at a Symposium Organized by the

Department of Antiquities and Antiquities Conservation of the J. Paul Getty Museum and Held at

the Museum 25-27 October 2001 (Los Angeles: J Paul Getty Museum, 2003), 225–26.

Cupid sitting between his legs. The original antique was largely complete, and Bernini is recorded

to have made restorations to the right foot, head of Cupid, and the left and right arm.

The head

of Cupid appears to be stylized after Bernini’s own sculptures of children. Beatrice Palma has

commented that the pommel has similarities with the commanders in the Great Battle Sarcophagus

in the Ludovisi collection, but in that case, the pommel featured a lion’s head whereas here, Bernini

chose to use a human face positioned not unlike a gargoyle.

From this analysis, Montagu has

argued that Bernini was not committed to purely restoring antiquities per the conventions of the

period established by Orefeo Boselli. Boselli was one of the only artists during the Italian

Renaissance and Baroque periods to document the techniques of restoration in his treatise

Osseruationi della Scoltura Antica (Restoration of Antique Sculpture) written in the 1650s.

The

key aspects that made a “good restoration,” according to Boselli, include a close study of the

iconography to properly identify the subject of the sculpture, and then matching the proportions

and antique style of the sculpture.

Instead, Bernini was adding to his own body of work with

these baroque details.

This critical analysis can be useful for insights into restoration decisions

in the Renaissance and the Baroque where restorers were comparing themselves to their ancient

Rudolph Wittkower and Pino Guidolotti, Bernini: The Sculptor of the Roman Baroque,

4th edition (London: Phaidon Press, 1997), 179.

Montagu, Roman Baroque Sculpture, 159.

Phoebe Dent Weil, “Contributions toward a History of Sculpture Techniques: 1. Orfeo

Boselli on the Restoration of Antique Sculpture,” Studies in Conservation 12, no. 3 (1967): 81–

101, https://doi.org/10.2307/1505332.

Weil, 86.

Montagu, Roman Baroque Sculpture, 159.

counterparts. When looking at the transition to the de-restoration phase in the 1970s and then to

the 21

century, formalist theory has less applicability as these restoration decisions were

removing parts and knowingly sacrificing the formal elements with the goal of revealing a truer

original work.

Another important part of art historical analysis is the identification and exploration of

iconography. Iconography falls under the category of structuralism and semiotics in the larger

context of literary theories. In art history and especially in ancient Greek and Roman works,

iconography is often the key to understanding what is represented in a work of art. In Howard’s

book on the Lansdowne Herakles, he notes, “he carries the well-known signs of his power – the

virile club and fur mantle of a lion.”

Here, Howard is referencing two of the most common

iconographic signs used to represent Herakles and how modern scholars can identify these works.

Orfeo Boselli, a Baroque sculptor who documented the techniques of restoration at the time, opines

that a key aspect of a good restoration includes a close study of the iconography to correctly

identify the subject.

Even though Boselli highlights iconography as an important aspect of

restoration, restoration artists in the Renaissance did not always follow this guidance. One example

of this is the Torchbearer by Alessandro Algardi, which is believed to have been a fragmentary

torso to which Algardi added iconography, invoking an ancient Greek god (Figure 7).

The figure

Howard, The Lansdowne Herakles, 7.

Weil, “Contributions toward a History of Sculpture Techniques,” 8.

Jennifer Montagu, Alessandro Algardi, 1st Edition (New Haven: Yale University Press,

1985), 398.

is of a young man leaning against the base of a palm tree with his right arm raised over his head

holding a torch and his left arm resting by his side holding apples. Algardi restored both arms and

legs, and a portion of the head as well as the base of the palm tree.

Theodor Schreiber, a German

art historian working in the 19

century, suggests that it might be a statue described in a 1622

inventory as having no arms, legs, or head.

In an inventory recorded in 1633, the statue is labeled

as ‘Un Prometeo’ or a Prometheus, but in later inventories in 1644 and 1664, it is labeled as ‘il

giorno’ or the day.

Since the original antique sculpture seems to have been quite fragmentary

with no identifying marks, all of the iconography used to invoke an ancient Greek god were

Algardi’s own invention. While there were some modifications to iconography during the first

period of restoration, from the Renaissance to the 19

century, the de-restoration of the Lansdowne

Herakles and Aegina Marbles did not significantly affect the understanding of the sculptures

through the lens of iconography.

One of the more prominent theories used to discuss the restoration of ancient sculpture is

centered around the ideology of the society in which the restoration was created and how these

restorations are viewed today. Most scholars who research and discuss restoration history focus on

the social and historical aspects in relation to reception theory and the interpretation of these

restorations in modern times. The major tenet of reception theory in a literary context is that

“[s]ignificances vary throughout history, whereas meanings remain constant; authors put in

Montagu, 401.

meanings, whereas readers assign significances.”

Reception theory is further explained as “the

meaning of a literary work is never exhausted by the intentions of its author; as the work passes

from one cultural or historical context to another, new meanings may be culled from it which were

perhaps never anticipated by its author or contemporary audience.”

Scholars like Podany, True,

and Scott, as well as many others, identify three main periods of restoration theory. These periods

are the restoration in the Renaissance through the early 19

century, a period of de-restoration in

the 1970s, and then the current era. The current era is the period after the de-restoration of the

1970s, where the focus has been on retaining the historical authenticity of the piece. These scholars

also correlate these three periods and their differences in restoration techniques to the society when

they were created.

From the Renaissance through the 19

century, restoration was commonplace and was a

booming business in Europe. This practice was so prevalent that almost all Italian Renaissance and

Baroque sculptors made part of their income through restoration commissions at some point in

their careers.

Leonard Barkan says that the motivations during this golden age of restoring

antiquities, “depended on a belief that progress in classical studies, combined with what we would

call a neoclassical aesthetic, ought to express itself in rendering ancient objects precisely as they

were when they were made.” When discussing this period, many scholars cite a passage from

Terry Eagleton, Literary Theory: An Introduction, 3rd edition (Minneapolis: Univ Of

Minnesota Press, 2008), 58.

Eagleton, 61–62.

Weil, “Contributions toward a History of Sculpture Techniques,” 83.

Vasari’s Lives of the Artists where he applauds the completion of several fragmentary antiquities

by Lorenzetto and goes on to call unrestored fragments “mutilated trunks.”

Scholars such as

Barkan use this passage to point out the social norms of the period. This is not the case with all

antiquities discovered during this period, and the Torso Belvedere is a notable exception. The

Torso Belvedere acquired much fame and acclaim in the Renaissance but was never restored.

Barkan theorized that the Torso was left untouched because it was understood that there was an

innate beauty to the fragmentary condition.

Michelangelo is said to have had a large influence

on the decision to leave the Torso Belvedere unrestored, because of his admiration for it. There are

reports that he even called it his greatest teacher.

Although Michelangelo intervened on behalf

of the Torso Belvedere, the trend of restoration continued through the 19

century as many

sculptors “saw it as their artistic prerogative to use the ancient material as both a model of

inspiration and a source of raw material.”

Peter Rockwell mentions in “The Creative Reuse of

Antiquity” that Renaissance restorer Pietro Bracci created restorations that in essence were new

sculptures, due to the amount of reconstruction he performed. Rockwell, however, notes that in

Giorgio Vasari, Lives of the Artists, trans. Gaston du C. De Vere, vol. V (London:

Philip Lee Warner, 1912), 57.

Barkan, Unearthing the Past: Archaeology and the Aesthetics in the Making of

Renaissance Culture, 205.

Barkan, 200; Francis Haskell and Nicholas Penny, Taste and the Antique: The Lure of

Classical Sculpture, 1500-1900 (New Haven and London: Yale University Press, 1981), 312.

Jerry Podany, “Lessons from the Past,” in History of Restoration of Ancient Stone

Sculptures: Papers Delivered at a Symposium Organized by the Department of Antiquities and

Antiquities Conservation of the J. Paul Getty Museum and Held at the Museum 25-27 October

2001 (Los Angeles: J Paul Getty Museum, 2003), 15.

the period of Bracci, “it was not so much arrogance on their part as a belief in their unity with the

past that led them to creative reconstruction rather than what we would now call restoration.”

During this period, there was a desire for classical sculpture since the nobility believed they were

descendants of Rome and Greece and wanted to portray this through their collections. The restorers

also felt these sculptures were their own heritage.

They often became cocreators with their ancient

counterparts, believing it was their right.

Scholars point to many different triggers for the decline of restoration in the late 19

century leading to a shift to de-restoration in the 1970s, but this remains the least discussed period

in restoration history. Many scholars have cited the decision to not restore the Elgin Marbles as a

turning point for restoration.

Although the Elgin Marbles are also part of a larger and more

complicated discussion on cultural patrimony, sculptor Antonio Canova, who was held in high

regard, “pronounced that it would be sacrilege for a modern hand to complete these fragments.”

One possible reason for the adamancy to not restore the Elgin Marbles is brought up by scholar

Orietta Rossi Pinelli. She notes the creation of public museums drove restoration theory from

wholesale restoration to de-restoration as sculptures for the first time were looked at as more than

Peter Rockwell, “The Creative Reuse of Antiquity,” in History of Restoration of

Ancient Stone Sculptures: Papers Delivered at a Symposium Organized by the Department of

Antiquities and Antiquities Conservation of the J. Paul Getty Museum and Held at the Museum

25-27 October 2001 (Los Angeles: J Paul Getty Museum, 2003), 79.

Rockwell, 79.

Weil, “Contributions toward a History of Sculpture Techniques,” 83.

Adolf Michaelis, Ancient Marbles in Great Britain, trans. Charles Augustus Maude

Fennell (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1882), 83.

purely decorative.

When these sculptures were displayed as part of museum collections instead

of personal collections, a historical significance began to be associated with them not solely an

aesthetic worth. With these sculptures’ historical significance now represented, Haskell and Penny

in their book Taste and the Antique point out Johann Joachim Winckelmann as another possible

influence on the waning acceptance of restoration in the 19

century. Winckelmann is often cited

as the father of art history for his seminal work History of Ancient Art published in 1763-1764,

which was a chronological account of ancient art.

Haskell and Penny note that Winckelmann was

not outwardly against the practice of restoration and was even friends with the popular restorer

Bartolomeo Cavaceppi. Their friendship and Winckelmann’s appreciation for the skill of Greek

sculptors influenced the decline in restoration practice over the following decades.

Podany

suggests that art critic Camillo Boito was a proponent of the 19

century resurgence of positivism

as the turning point for restoration, noting that Boito was extremely vocal in his opinions of

restorations and even suggesting that any prior restorations be thrown away.

Orietta Rossi Pinelli, “From the Need for Completion to the Cult of the Fragment: How

Tastes, Scholarship, and Museum Curators’ Choices Changed Our View of Ancient Sculpture,”

in History of Restoration of Ancient Stone Sculptures: Papers Delivered at a Symposium

Organized by the Department of Antiquities and Antiquities Conservation of the J. Paul Getty

Museum and Held at the Museum 25-27 October 2001 (Los Angeles: J Paul Getty Museum,

2003), 62.

Haskell and Penny, Taste and the Antique: The Lure of Classical Sculpture, 1500-

1900, 100.

Haskell and Penny, 102.

Podany, “Lessons from the Past,” 14.

When looking at the de-restoration phase of restoration history, scholars cite a “cult of the

fragment” and a desire for purism in the archaeological community.

Marion True even cites the

de-restoration of the Aegina Marbles by Dieter Ohly as the start of this trend.

Giovanna

Martellotti, a conservator at the Capitoline Museums in Rome, investigated the restorations of the

Dying Gaul sculpture. Martellotti posited that certain alterations in the positioning of the arm in

Renaissance restorations “changes the interpretation of the figure, emphasizing the heroic aspect

of a warrior who, despite his wounds, resist death.”

Martellotti does not call for the de-restoration

of the Dying Gaul because of these prior changes, but one could see how de-restoration might

bring the piece closer to the original meaning and intention of the piece. Mette Moltesen,

archeologist and curator at Ny Carlsberg Glyptotek, asserts that “[i]n the past, as in the present,

the museum curators were classical archaeologists interested in the objects, not for their aesthetic

value and recent history, but primarily for their true ancient selves.”

Moltesen points out that this

is still an issue that is found in museums today as they try to manage the original antique in terms

David Lowenthal, “Authenticities Past and Present,” CRM: The Journal of Heritage

Stewardship 5, no. 1 (2008): 13.

True, “Changing Approaches to Conservation,” 6–7.

Giovanna Martellotti, “Reconstructive Restoration of Roman Sculptures: Three Case

Studies,” in History of Restoration of Ancient Stone Sculptures: Papers Delivered at a

Symposium Organized by the Department of Antiquities and Antiquities Conservation of the J.

Paul Getty Museum and Held at the Museum 25-27 October 2001 (Los Angeles: J Paul Getty

Museum, 2003), 182.

Mette Moltesen, “De-Restoring and Re-Restoring: Fifty Years of Restoration Work in

the Ny Carlsberg Glyptotek,” in History of Restoration of Ancient Stone Sculptures: Papers

Delivered at a Symposium Organized by the Department of Antiquities and Antiquities

Conservation of the J. Paul Getty Museum and Held at the Museum 25-27 October 2001 (Los

Angeles: J Paul Getty Museum, 2003), 207–8.

of its meaning in relation to the condition it is in from previous restorers. Although scholars cite a

need for purism as the societal ideology at the time, there is not much discussion about what

spurred the society of the 1970s toward this trend. This is the period that the present study will

further investigate.

When discussing the third period of restoration as defined in this study, most scholars show

a reluctance to make changes to the works outside of what is necessary to save the piece from

degrading. As mentioned earlier, when discussing the restorations on the Lansdowne Herakles,

Podany believes that previous restorations make a permanent change and any further modification

of the piece will not provide any more insight into the antiquity.

Similarly, Barkan notes that in

the 20

century with additional knowledge and understanding, society began “to appreciate, in

other words, the differing privileges of works that remain in their original pristine condition, or

works that have a long and familiar history in some altered state, and of works that are

technologically returned to some earlier condition that we can only guess at.”

These attitudes

toward restoration are in line with the current code of ethics of conservation. Across many

conservation associations, they state that the main pillar of conservation is to not leave one’s own

mark on the piece and only do what is absolutely necessary to preserve the work. Marion True also

Podany, “Restoring What Wasn’t There,” 15.

Barkan, Unearthing the Past: Archaeology and the Aesthetics in the Making of

Renaissance Culture, 187.

notes the questions brought up by these restorations and how best to explain the works to the

public. She concludes that it must be clearly explained what is ancient and what is not.

When discussing the restoration history of the Lansdowne Herakles and the Aegina

Marbles, there is more analysis of the restoration periods of the Lansdowne Herakles. Podany,

True, and Howard, who worked for the Getty during their careers, wrote several articles and books

on the subject. In the case of Podany and True, their focus has been on defending and explaining

their decision to re-restore the Lansdowne Herakles.

Howard published a book on the de-

restoration of the Lansdowne Herakles in the 1970s in conjunction with the conservation report.

While Howard’s book does not analyze the motivations behind this decision, his book is critical

to documenting and understanding the de-restoration that occurred. As discussed earlier, the

literature on the Aegina Marbles is focused more on the discussion of the stylistic changes in Greek

art. The most cited article on the restoration of the Aegina Marbles is by Diebold and gives a

succinct history of the modifications to the work and the current attitudes.

Adding to the discussion of reception theory and ancient sculpture restoration, David Scott

in his book Art: Authenticity, Restoration, Forgery proposes that there are three aspects of

authenticity that can explain different periods of restoration. Scott questions the authenticity of

ancient sculptures at different periods of history and how viewers interact with them, at one point

True, “Changing Approaches to Conservation,” 9.

True, “Changing Approaches to Conservation”; Podany, “Lessons from the Past.”

Howard, The Lansdowne Herakles.

Diebold, “The Politics of Derestoration.”

chastising the modern viewer. Scott states that the authenticity “of the sculpture cannot be

transformed in the 21

century just because an observer today does not like what happened in the

century.”

Scott uses conceptual, material, and aesthetic authenticity to categorize the societal

ideologies during each given period in relation to restoration and authenticity.

While Scott

identified three aspects of authenticity, this study will include historical authenticity as a main

pillar of authenticity when discussing the restorations of ancient sculptures. Scott also delves into

interesting aspects of ancient Greek and Roman sculptures, primarily that a significant portion of

the “Greek” sculptures studied today are Roman copies of Greek originals and these cannot always

be trusted to be faithful copies of the original sculpture.

Methodology

Elements of authenticity in conjunction with new historicism can explain how each period

handled restoration and was affected by societal ideology. New historicism is a literary theory that

is based on “the parallel reading of literary and non-literary texts, usually of the same historical

period.”

Barry in his book on literary theories said that “[t]ypically, a new historical essay will

David A. Scott, Art: Authenticity, Restoration, Forgery (Los Angeles: Cotsen Institute

of Archaeology Press, 2016), 193.

Scott, 66–67.

Scott, 188.

Peter Barry, Beginning Theory: An Introduction to Literary and Cultural Theory, Third

(Manchester and New York: Manchester University Press, 2009), 166.

place the literary text within the ‘frame’ of a non-literary text.”

For this analysis, new historicism

will be used to analyze the written material from the period around the 1970s de-restoration phase

and identify the dominant authenticity. Unlike the leading previous scholarship, this study will not

pass judgment on the restoration decisions of the past, but instead, look to understand the

motivations.

The four elements of authenticity according to this study are aesthetic, conceptual, material,

and historical. David Scott originally identified aesthetic, conceptual, and material authenticity to

analyze works and restorations. Historical authenticity has been added to this study to aid in the

discussion of the current attitudes and motivations of restoration in the 21

century. Aesthetic

authenticity is defined as the appreciation of a whole and complete object that resembles its

original state immediately following completion. Material authenticity is the original physical

object and any “normal” wear or aging to it. Conceptual authenticity includes the meaning and

iconography of the object. Finally, historical authenticity is comprised of an understanding that

the object has passed through time which has molded and changed it from what the original artist

first produced but that this only adds to the objects history, not diminishes it. Using these elements

of authenticity and applying them to the two case studies in this analysis can illuminate why

decisions were made to restore, de-restore, or how much restoration was required. When this

methodology is applied to Greek and Roman statues that were restored during the golden age a

pattern emerges identifying the dominant authenticity.

Barry, 167.

Beginning with the Renaissance, the focus was primarily on the completion of fragmentary

sculptures that were being discovered throughout Italy and Greece. This aligns with a focus on

aesthetic authenticity with little concern for anything else. When this practice is further explored

it makes sense that restorers would focus on completing the fragmentary sculpture, since the upper

class of the period intensely disliked fragmented sculptures. The focus on the aesthetic authenticity

of works was primarily driven at this time by the wealthy patrons and their monetary support for

restorers to fully repair broken sculptures. During this period, restorers were a business of selling

art and restorers conformed to the tastes of their customers. The practice of full-scale restorations

started to wane in the 19

century and then it completely changed in the 1960 to 1970s.

During the 1970s there was pressure to de-restore previous restorations to stay true to the

original antiquity, focusing on material authenticity and only the original object. This interest for

purism in the world of ancient sculptures and societal pressures would have created the focus on

material authenticity. From the late 20

century to the present there are many examples of

conservators restoring the restorations that were removed during the 1970s emphasizing the

historical authenticity of the piece. There is a current understanding that once any work has been

done to the sculpture it cannot be undone and we must live with and understand all that has

happened to the piece over time.

Analysis

During the 1970s there was an unprecedented focus on purism in ancient Greek and Roman

sculpture. This fixation on purism of sculpture heavily influenced the restoration practices of the

period and resulted in dramatic changes to many ancient sculptures. Before discussing more of the

changes in restoration policy it is important to first fully define the term. Conservation and

restoration are often two terms that are used interchangeably by the general public when discussing

work performed in museums to maintain and protect pieces in their collections. However, the

differences in the terms are not trivial. Conservation is focused on maintaining “the currently

existing state of the artwork without the addition or subtraction of other parts or components.”

Restoration, alternatively, “seeks to alter the current state of the work in the name of an aesthetic

realization of an earlier desired condition, or a more visually understandable or metaphorically

legible condition, seen as a legitimate and valorized alteration to the current state of the work.”

Based on the definitions given by Scott, restoration at its core is more susceptible to the current

attitudes and opinions of the period in which the restoration occurs, unlike conservation which

solely attempts to maintain current conditions.

Both case studies here saw dramatic de-restorations in the 1970s, shedding earlier

restorations that were meant to complete sculptures. Just as the desires of the English gentleman

collector in the 17

and 18

centuries influenced the restoration approach of Cavaceppi and others,

the major individuals in the museum industry influenced the de-restoration of these sculptures in

the 20

century. Scholars often cite a rationale of “logical positivism” or “mereological

essentialism” as reasons for the focus on only the pure fragment and material authenticity.

It is

David A. Scott, “Ancient Marbles: Philosophical Reflections on the Restoration of

Sculpture,” Studies in Conservation, March 22, 2022, 1–2,

https://doi.org/10.1080/00393630.2022.2049032.

Scott, 1–2.

Scott, 8.

interesting to note, that these rationales did not seem to extend past the realm of marble sculpture

during this period. Although, sculptures were being deconstructed and left as fragments all over

the world, like the Lansdowne Herakles (Figure 2), other mediums such as paintings, furniture,

and metal works did not experience the same trends in restoration, de-restoration, and then re-

restoration.

While scholars highlight these trends in restoration, it seems that the root of these

changes in philosophy are not well developed. To understand the conditions that created the

environment of the 1970s de-restoration, this discussion will turn to another discipline with more

literature on the attitude change in the 1970s.

Since there is little research on what precipitated the focus on purism in ancient sculpture

restoration, the discussion center on changes in historiography in 1970s England. There are

significant writings and analyses of changes in the approach to historical literature during this

period that can be extrapolated to sculptural restoration theory. Scholar Michael Bentley in his

exhaustive book on the changes in English historiography during this timeframe identifies the first

seedlings of change as occurring in the years between the World Wars (1918 – 1939).

During

this period, “Einstein’s two theories of relativity found their way by osmosis into a wider

intellectual culture…In the humanities as in the visual arts, the result was a certain astringency: a

rejection of all forms of metaphysics, a caustic view of religion, an insistence on hypothesis

confirmed by proof.”

Through this shift towards adopting the principles of the “hard sciences”

Scott, 15.

Michael Bentley, Modernizing England’s Past: English Historiography in the Age of

Modernism, 1870–1970 (Cambridge, UK ; New York: Cambridge University Press, 2006), 197.

Bentley, 197.

in the humanities there was waning approval for anything not based in pure facts. In the discussion

of historical writing, this translated to “[t]he objective in this work lay in the ‘discovery’ of ‘facts’

that were taken to exist in the past: certainties that could prove a bedrock on which the discipline

could rise assured of its foundations.”

Not only was this change in philosophy based on the

scientific discoveries of the period, but also the apprehension felt around the world from back-to-

back World Wars. As stated by Bentley, there was a desire to create a foundation steeped in truth

to rebuild after a period of chaos. This understanding of changes in English historiography pairs

well with the idea of purism in ancient sculpture restoration. With the Lansdowne Herakles, Barov

in the conservation report explains the decision to leave off 18

century restorations by describing

them as “alien additions” and in conflict with his desire to showcase the original.

Similarly, with

the Aegina Marbles, Director Ohly defends his decision to de-restore based on a “misleading

blending of the past and the present.”

100

Both of these reasons fit well within the framework

established in English historiography for the period. The most compelling comparison between

historiography during this period and restoration comes from the writings of Sir Herbert

Butterfield:

The new technique of history concentrates almost entirely upon the delivery of what

really happened in the past rather than upon the method of presenting and unfolding

the story…It is the technique not of a man painting a picture on a blank canvas, but

of a man correcting a picture already painted…The modern technique of history is

essentially a negative thing, not only failing to create in the larger sense but actually

Bentley, 198.

Howard, The Lansdowne Herakles, 4.

100

Ruprecht, “Romantic Receptions,” 381.

being a method of preventing oneself from being creative at all…It is a gigantic

science of caution, a colossal elimination of one’s self.

101

This summarizes exactly what it appears Barov and Ohly are trying to accomplish with their de-

restoration campaigns. They want to remove one’s self from these sculptures and correct them

back to the original antiques. The focus is entirely on the material authenticity of the piece and the

original aspects from the past. Although the timing of the movement is seen slightly earlier in

English historiography than in restoration history, it stands to reason that if the philosophy started

in historiography it would have taken some time to disseminate to other disciplines, such as

restoration. While those studying English historiography see a decline in this “positivist” or

“empiricist” attitude around the 1970s, the approach was just becoming fully formed in the

restoration community.

102

In addition to the importance of facts from the hard sciences and the unease from the World

Wars, English historian G. M. Trevelyan identified rather bitterly, one last driver of the positivist

ideals in the liberal arts. He states, “the professionalizing universities, places where the[y] felt need

to make history a more rigorous discipline had advanced unwelcome tendencies.”

103

In restoration

history, universities are less of the driving force, and instead, it is museums that champion “truth”

and “fact.” When discussing the case studies for this analysis, both received de-restoration

treatment as they went from private collections into public museums. Prior to entering museum

collections they were part of private collections and were seen as decorations rather than parts of

101

Bentley, Modernizing England’s Past, 201.

102

Bentley, 2–220.

103

Bentley, 202.

history. The Lansdowne Herakles was a part of a well-known Lord’s country home collection

where “[t]heir houses and celebrated collections gave them recognition and status, and reputations

of learned connoisseurs.”

104

The restorers of the 17

and 18

centuries understood the value their

clients placed on aesthetic authenticity and this is why there was such a robust business around

restoration.

105

As many of these pieces, including the Lansdowne Herakles and Aegina Marbles,

moved into museums, their function and perception changed. Eva Silvén-Garnert describes how

some of the changes to these pieces were viewed, “With the Modern episteme the concept of time,

historical context, and function entered museum collections. Material things were arranged by

chronology, or temporal sequence, rather than according to hidden secret resemblances, or the

relationship of visible features.”

106

When viewing museum pieces in this way, the earlier

Renaissance or 18

century restorations to ancient sculpture confused the clear chronology of the

past. As these pieces moved into museum collections they were now a representation of history –

valued for material authenticity and its status as an antiquity. In museums there was a very strict

categorization of pieces, “the seeing of things was given priority over the reading of things. Thus,

vast areas of semiological information were ignored; both meanings and those things which did

not have a material identity were excluded from the classificatory table.”

107

At this point, museums

104

Catharine O’Shaughnessy, “Dionysus in Marble and on Paper: Looking at the Culture

of Collecting and Changing Practices in Conservation,” Vides 3 (2015): 21.

105

O’Shaughnessy, 25.

106

Eva Silvén-Garnert, “Objects in the World and Objects in Museums,” Nordisk

Museologi, no. 2 (1995): 124, https://doi.org/10.5617/nm.3726.

107

Silvén-Garnert, 124.

had already developed an expectation from the public that as institutions of cultural preservation,

they would uphold the timeline of visual history.

108

Some scholars have even argued that as pieces

enter museum collections they take on a combined representation of the museum policy and their

own histories and can no longer be viewed objectively.

109

The Lansdowne Herakles and Aegina

Marbles likewise were no longer valued solely for their aesthetic authenticity and decorative

properties. Instead, they entered museums where material authenticity reigned supreme. They took

on the role of representing a part of the visual timeline museums were responsible to preserve.

While both the Lansdowne Herakles and the Aegina Marbles were de-restored in the 1970s,

their fate in modern time diverges. The Lansdowne Herakles was once again restored in 1996,

while the Aegina Marbles remain in their de-restored state. The differences in their current final

state shows the hesitancy in the modern era to continue to inflict the ideals of the current period

on the pieces. Where “re-restoration is an acknowledgement that previous modifications to works

are permanent and that they reflect the ethos of the period in which they were done.”

110

This idea

led to the re-restoration of the Lansdowne Herakles, as the team at the Getty felt that more was

gained from the full story and history of the sculpture than the fragmented state it was left in after

the 1970s de-restoration. In the case of the Aegina Marbles, there is evidence that Thorvaldsen’s

108

Amelia Griese, “Time’s Up: Artist’s Intentions and the Ethics of Preserving

Ephemeral Art,” Columbia Journal of Art History 2, no. 1 (May 2020): 46.

109

Patricia Davison, “Material Culture, Context and Meaning: A Critical Investigation of

Museum Practice, with Particular Reference to the South African Museum,” 1991, sec. Abstract,

https://open.uct.ac.za/handle/11427/18276.

110

O’Shaughnessy, “Dionysus in Marble and on Paper: Looking at the Culture of

Collecting and Changing Practices in Conservation,” 27.

restoration is not accurate based on new archaeological evidence. Thus, the decision to leave the

sculptures unrestored is logical so that there is less confusion in the understanding of the sculptures.

The changes seen in restoration history, like the 1970s, was also foreshadowed by English

historiography. When commenting on historians after the age of the 1970s purism, Bentley noted

that the following generation distanced themselves from those before them because of their

“inability to recognize the importance of audience.”

111

In the 1970s the pursuit of hard science and

facts, issues like relatability and readability were left behind. Those who came after the 1970s were

focused on “a fusion of professionalism with the wider project of reaching the public.”

112

After the

1970s there was a renewed concentration on the viewer and the public which is represented by the

differing decisions made in both case studies. In both cases, the final state of the sculpture is

intended to exhibit the most understanding of the piece and its history for the viewer. Now the

dominant authenticity has shifted to historical authenticity. There is an awareness that these ancient

sculptures have survived with a history and as they passed through time they were irreversibly

changed. All that museums can do now is highlight and appreciate the history of these pieces.

Conclusions

Restoration history for ancient Greek and Roman sculptures has been long and

complicated. Even now with a focus on visibility to the public, the restorations done to a sculpture

are often minimized and the history not highlighted. This was identified in the introduction in the

111

Bentley, Modernizing England’s Past, 229.

112

Bentley, 229.

case of the Lansdowne Herakles. The period of de-restoration in the 1970s represents a time that

most modern scholars criticize as imposing too much of the restorer’s views on the sculptures.

Many museum professionals believe that the decisions to de-restore sculptures in the 1970s were

against the best interests of the works and use negative language when discussing these choices.

The goal of this thesis was not to judge the restoration decisions in the 1970s but to understand the

drivers for purism and the dramatic shift to material authenticity. English historiography offers a

compelling parallel to restoration history. After the World Wars, English historiography also had

a significant deviation in analysis that was based on a quest for hard facts. This change in theory,

was precipitated by discoveries in science and mathematics that bled into the humanities and

shifted the focus to objective “facts.” This was paired with institutions, such as universities, desire

to make the humanities more rigorous. The departure in the English historiography approach was

waning by the 1970s to one focused more on accessibility to the public. In restoration history, the

ideas espoused in English historiography were just becoming prominent in the 1970s and

manifested in the form of the de-restorations of many ancient sculptures. Instead of universities

perpetuating the ideas, museums needed sculptures to conform to a strict timeline of visual history,

which they felt was their obligation to protect. The previous restorations of sculptures like the

Lansdowne Herakles and Aegina Marbles disrupted the classification and understanding of these

pieces as ancient and prompted the de-restoration of them. Restoration history mirrors English

historiography in the 1970s and can help explain the gap in understanding during a period of

dramatic de-restoration.

The final aspect of this thesis involves the use of dominant authenticities to contextualize

the decisions made in ancient sculptural restoration in each of the defined periods. Figure 8 gives

a visual representation of the discussion of how dominant authenticities transformed between the

Golden Age, the 1970s and the current era. In the Golden Age, aesthetic authenticity matched the

distaste for fragmentary sculpture that led Renaissance and Baroque restorers to complete ancient

sculpture with their own invention. While aesthetic authenticity was the primary driver during this

period there was also importance placed on conceptual authenticity in the form of iconography as

defined in Boselli’s treatise on restoration. During the 1970s, the influence of discoveries in

science and math led to a focus on objectivity and a need for purism in sculpture. The decision to

de-restore many sculptures aligns with material authenticity, where the attention was on the

original antique fragments. There was hardly any consideration on maintaining aesthetic

authenticity at this time and many sculptures have been criticized for the jarring nature of

fragments held together with metal rods. Looking forward to now and the future, there is a focus

on balancing all aspects of authenticity however, historical authenticity has been given more

weight. Historical authenticity aligns with modern conservation practices and the understanding

that these sculptures have gone through history and been changed by it. In the modern era,

museums have started to prioritize transparency in restoration and show hesitancy in modifying

works any further unless necessary for their preservation. As museums continue to understand

more about the complicated histories of these ancient sculptures and their restorations, they will

have to become more creative with their representation of this history to the viewer. Progress is

already being made, for example, the Smithsonian American Art Museum has published on their

website a fun, interactive slider that allows visitors to look closely at before and after images of

restorations to paintings, sculptures, and photographs in their collection as well as explanations of

the treatment.

113

Translated to ancient sculptural restoration, innovations like this one will allow

candid conversations about the restoration history of these sculptures and the importance of

understanding their past through the lens of historical authenticity going forward.

113

“Before and After Conservation Treatment | Smithsonian American Art Museum,”

accessed December 5, 2022, https://americanart.si.edu/art/conservation/before-after.

Illustrations

Figure 1. Lansdowne Herakles, 125 CE, marble, Los Angeles, J. Paul Getty Museum

114

“File:Lansdowne Herakles Getty Museum.Jpg,” in Wikipedia, February 13, 2021,

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Lansdowne_Herakles_Getty_Museum.jpg&oldid

=1006542784.

Figure 2. Lansdowne Herakles after removal of 18

-century restorations by Getty Museum

115

Howard, The Lansdowne Herakles.

Figure 3. Pedimental Sculpture from Temple of Aphaia on Aegina, Munich, Glyptothek

Figure 4. Warrior O II shown before and after de-restoration of the work done by Thorvaldsen

116

Diebold, “The Politics of Derestoration,” 61.

Figure 5. Temple of Aphaia East Pediment Proposals

117

Mackenzie, “The East Pediment Sculptures of the Temple of Aphaia at Aegina.”

Figure 6. Ludovisi Ares, 4

century BCE, marble, Rome, National Museum Terme, restored by

Bernini

118

“Ludovisi Ares | Museum of Classical Archaeology Databases,” accessed December

5, 2022, https://museum.classics.cam.ac.uk/collections/casts/ludovisi-ares.

Figure 7. Torchbearer, Alessandro Algardi, 1626, marble, Rome, National Museum of Ancient

Art

119

Alessandro Algardi and Marie-Lan Nguyen, English: Torchbearer. Creation by

Alessandro Algardi after an Antique Torso., September 2009, Carrara marblemedium

Figure 8. Dominant Authenticities over Time, shows the relative importance of each authenticity

to restorations in the Golden Age, the 1970s, and today.

120

QS:P186,Q40088, September 2009, Museo nazionale romano di palazzo Altemps,

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Torchbearer_Ludovisi_Altemps_Inv8601.jpg.

120

Golden Age 1970s Now

Dominat Authenticities Over Time

Conceptual Aesthetic Material Historical

Bibliography

Algardi, Alessandro, and Marie-Lan Nguyen. English: Torchbearer. Creation by Alessandro

Algardi after an Antique Torso. September 2009. Carrara marblemedium

QS:P186,Q40088. Museo nazionale romano di palazzo Altemps.

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Torchbearer_Ludovisi_Altemps_Inv8601.jpg.

Barkan, Leonard. Unearthing the Past: Archaeology and the Aesthetics in the Making of

Renaissance Culture. New Haven and London: Yale University Press, 1999.

Barringer, Judith M. The Art and Archaeology of Ancient Greece. Cambridge: Cambridge

University Press, 2014.

Barry, Peter. Beginning Theory: An Introduction to Literary and Cultural Theory. Third.

Manchester and New York: Manchester University Press, 2009.

“Before and After Conservation Treatment | Smithsonian American Art Museum.” Accessed

December 5, 2022. https://americanart.si.edu/art/conservation/before-after.

Bentley, Michael. Modernizing England’s Past: English Historiography in the Age of

Modernism, 1870–1970. Cambridge, UK ; New York: Cambridge University Press, 2006.

Davison, Patricia. “Material Culture, Context and Meaning: A Critical Investigation of Museum

Practice, with Particular Reference to the South African Museum,” 1991.

https://open.uct.ac.za/handle/11427/18276.

Diebold, William J. “The Politics of Derestoration: The Aegina Pediments and the German

Confrontation with the Past.” Art Journal 54, no. 2 (1995): 60–66.

https://doi.org/10.2307/777463.

Eagleton, Terry. Literary Theory: An Introduction. 3rd edition. Minneapolis: Univ Of Minnesota

Press, 2008.

“File:Lansdowne Herakles Getty Museum.Jpg.” In Wikipedia, February 13, 2021.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Lansdowne_Herakles_Getty_Museum.jp

g&oldid=1006542784.

Griese, Amelia. “Time’s Up: Artist’s Intentions and the Ethics of Preserving Ephemeral Art.”

Columbia Journal of Art History 2, no. 1 (May 2020): 45–60.

Haskell, Francis, and Nicholas Penny. Taste and the Antique: The Lure of Classical Sculpture,

1500-1900. New Haven and London: Yale University Press, 1981.

Howard, Seymour. The Lansdowne Herakles. Malibu, Calif.: J. Paul Getty Museum, 1978.

Lowenthal, David. “Authenticities Past and Present.” CRM: The Journal of Heritage

Stewardship 5, no. 1 (2008): 6–17.

“Ludovisi Ares | Museum of Classical Archaeology Databases.” Accessed December 5, 2022.

https://museum.classics.cam.ac.uk/collections/casts/ludovisi-ares.

Mackenzie, Duncan. “The East Pediment Sculptures of the Temple of Aphaia at Aegina.” The

Annual of the British School at Athens 15 (1908): 274–307.

Martellotti, Giovanna. “Reconstructive Restoration of Roman Sculptures: Three Case Studies.”

In History of Restoration of Ancient Stone Sculptures: Papers Delivered at a Symposium

Organized by the Department of Antiquities and Antiquities Conservation of the J. Paul

Getty Museum and Held at the Museum 25-27 October 2001, 179–90. Los Angeles: J

Paul Getty Museum, 2003.

Marvin, Miranda. “Possessions of the Princes: The Ludovisi Collection.” In History of

Restoration of Ancient Stone Sculptures: Papers Delivered at a Symposium Organized by

the Department of Antiquities and Antiquities Conservation of the J. Paul Getty Museum

and Held at the Museum 25-27 October 2001, 225–38. Los Angeles: J Paul Getty

Museum, 2003.

Michaelis, Adolf. Ancient Marbles in Great Britain. Translated by Charles Augustus Maude

Fennell. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1882.

Moltesen, Mette. “De-Restoring and Re-Restoring: Fifty Years of Restoration Work in the Ny

Carlsberg Glyptotek.” In History of Restoration of Ancient Stone Sculptures:

Papers Delivered at a Symposium Organized by the Department of Antiquities and

Antiquities Conservation of the J. Paul Getty Museum and Held at the Museum 25-27

October 2001, 207–24. Los Angeles: J Paul Getty Museum, 2003.

Montagu, Jennifer. Alessandro Algardi. 1st Edition. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1985.

———. Roman Baroque Sculpture: The Industry of Art. New Haven, N.Y.: Yale University

Press, 1993.

O’Shaughnessy, Catharine. “Dionysus in Marble and on Paper: Looking at the Culture of

Collecting and Changing Practices in Conservation.” Vides 3 (2015): 21–31.

Pinelli, Orietta Rossi. “From the Need for Completion to the Cult of the Fragment: How Tastes,

Scholarship, and Museum Curators’ Choices Changed Our View of Ancient Sculpture.”

In History of Restoration of Ancient Stone Sculptures: Papers Delivered at a Symposium

Organized by the Department of Antiquities and Antiquities Conservation of the J. Paul

Getty Museum and Held at the Museum 25-27 October 2001, 61–74. Los Angeles: J Paul

Getty Museum, 2003.

Podany, Jerry. “Lessons from the Past.” In History of Restoration of Ancient Stone Sculptures:

Papers Delivered at a Symposium Organized by the Department of Antiquities and

Antiquities Conservation of the J. Paul Getty Museum and Held at the Museum 25-27

October 2001, 13–24. Los Angeles: J Paul Getty Museum, 2003.

———. “Restoring What Wasn’t There: Reconsideration of the Eighteenth-Century Restorations

to the Lansdowne Herakles in the Collection of the J Paul Getty Museum.” In Restoration

- Is It Acceptable?, edited by William A. Oddy. London: British Museum Press, 1994.

Rockwell, Peter. “The Creative Reuse of Antiquity.” In History of Restoration of Ancient Stone

Sculptures: Papers Delivered at a Symposium Organized by the Department of

Antiquities and Antiquities Conservation of the J. Paul Getty Museum and Held at the

Museum 25-27 October 2001, 75–86. Los Angeles: J Paul Getty Museum, 2003.

Ruprecht, Louis A. “Romantic Receptions or The Aeginetan Sculptures Long March to Munich.”

In Religious Convergence in the Ancient Mediterranean, 359–90. Atlanta: Lockwood

Press, 2019.

Scott, David A. “Ancient Marbles: Philosophical Reflections on the Restoration of Sculpture.”

Studies in Conservation, March 22, 2022, 1–19.

https://doi.org/10.1080/00393630.2022.2049032.

———. Art: Authenticity, Restoration, Forgery. Los Angeles: Cotsen Institute of Archaeology

Press, 2016.

Silvén-Garnert, Eva. “Objects in the World and Objects in Museums.” Nordisk Museologi, no. 2

(1995): 123–123. https://doi.org/10.5617/nm.3726.

The J. Paul Getty in Los Angeles. “Statue of Hercules (Lansdowne Herakles) (Getty Museum).”

Accessed December 5, 2021.

https://www.getty.edu/art/collection/objects/6549/unknown-maker-statue-of-hercules-

lansdowne-herakles-roman-about-ad-125/.

True, Marion. “Changing Approaches to Conservation.” In History of Restoration of Ancient

Stone Sculptures: Papers Delivered at a Symposium Organized by the Department of

Antiquities and Antiquities Conservation of the J. Paul Getty Museum and Held at the

Museum 25-27 October 2001, 1–12. Los Angeles: J Paul Getty Museum, 2003.

Vasari, Giorgio. Lives of the Artists. Translated by Gaston du C. De Vere. Vol. V. London:

Philip Lee Warner, 1912.

Weil, Phoebe Dent. “Contributions toward a History of Sculpture Techniques: 1. Orfeo Boselli

on the Restoration of Antique Sculpture.” Studies in Conservation 12, no. 3 (1967): 81–

101. https://doi.org/10.2307/1505332.

Wimsatt, W. K., and M. C. Beardsley. “The Intentional Fallacy.” The Sewanee Review 54, no. 3

(1946): 468–88.

Wittkower, Rudolph, and Pino Guidolotti. Bernini: The Sculptor of the Roman Baroque. 4th

edition. London: Phaidon Press, 1997.